Parents shocked at arrest of student over ‘terrorist threat’

Bi Yantao’s Note: The incident that happened to Tiantian Zhai has caused a stir in China’s media and blogsphere. Frankly, many people here in China are surprised. How on earth does US define the freedom of speech? All comments are warmly welcome, and I will introduce your insights to China.

China Daily
May 25, 2010

XI’AN/WASHINGTON — Zhai Taishan, the father of a Chinese doctoral degree student in New Jersey accused by US police of attempted arson and making threats, flew from Xi’an, Shaanxi province, to Beijing on Monday night, seeking help from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“I will never believe that my son is a terrorist,” Zhai said.
His son, Zhai Tiantian, studied at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, before he was arrested by police on April 16. Police allege he tried to set fire to a campus building after threatening to get revenge on a professor who gave him a low mark.

The indictment statement said the incident was treated as a “terrorist threat.”
Zhai Tiantian, 27, however, denied that he had any plans to commit arson.

The Stevens Institute canceled Zhai Tiantian’s student visa the day he was arrested and the next day the US Immigration and Naturalization Services ordered his arrest. The following day the immigration authorities issued a deportation order for Zhai Tianian.

“Zhai’s behavior over a period of months and involving numerous individuals, was deemed to represent a threat to the well being of others. The suspension has nothing to do with conflict or difference of opinion with academic faculty, as some reports have stated erroneously,” university spokespeople said in a statement to China Daily.

“On April 15, Zhai (Tiantian) was arrested after threatening to burn to the ground a University building. Police determined that the threat was credible and took appropriate action,” said the spokespeople.

They added that the school suspended Zhai Tiantian after a thorough investigation but would not go into detail, saying that “disciplinary actions are confidential and Stevens cannot comment on specific violations”.

Zhai Tiantian is being held in the Hudson County jail in New York state.
He was born in Xi’an and went to study in the US in 2003.

Zhai Tiantian’s mother, Wang Xiaojun, said she received a phone call at her home in Xi’an from one of her son’s schoolmates early on May 10, who told her that her son was in jail.

“My friend was a bit brash in his quarrel with the professor, but he told me that he absolutely did not say anything about setting fire to the school,” said a classmate surnamed Wang.

According to Wang, Zhai Tiantian is a top student who maintains good relations with his fellow students, adding she does not understand how he could be considered a terrorist.

Zhai Taishan said he and Wang could not believe the news after receiving the phone call from the US and we so incredulous that they tried to contact friends in the US to confirm it.

“We felt so disappointed when we got confirmation from a story in the US China Press (a Chinese newspaper published in the US),” Zhai Taishan told China Daily on Monday.

The US China Press reported on May 20 that Zhai Tiantian said something about getting revenge to his professor and the professor later called the campus police. They arrested Zhai Tiantian and turned him over to the New Jersey police. Zhai is reportedly unable to raise the $20,000 bail.

Hai Ming, Zhai Tiantian’s lawyer, told the US China Press that America is a nation with freedom of speech and that people cannot be convicted on the basis of what they think or say.

The case is being mishandled, Hai said.

Zhai Tiantian has two lawyers, a government-appointed one for the criminal charge and Hai to handle the immigration case. The outcome of the criminal case will ultimately determine whether Zhai Tiantian will be sent back to China. If convicted, he might not be allowed to stay in the US.

The lawyer said that before the dispute, Zhai Tiantian expressed dissatisfaction with the institute in a television interview in which he said he wanted to sue the school for racial discrimination.

“This may be the real reason why the school is dealing with him this way,” Hai alleged.

Luo Gang, the overseas Chinese affairs consul with the Chinese Consulate-General in New York, said he has handled similar cases in which Chinese students had verbal clashes with others.

“Chinese and American cultures are different, so what the Chinese regard as acceptable remarks may be deemed by Americans as threats. This is an unfortunate incident,” Luo said.

“The case is in the judicial phase and we can only hope the lawyers will be able to help him,” added Luo.

Zhang Xingfan, vice-president of the Shaanxi Chamber of Commerce in the US, made a phone call to Zhai Taishan on Sunday after learning the news, saying he would be happy to provide assistance to the family.

“We were shocked by the news and will pay attention to the progress of the case. As fellow Shaanxi people, we will offer any possible help to the student,” Zhang said.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

88 Responses to “Parents shocked at arrest of student over ‘terrorist threat’”

Looks like an ordinary Chinese vulgarity “拼命”(fight to the death) may have been taken out of context, as Mr. Lou alluded to . But when in Rome, you know, these Chinese students need to learn some manners and behave themselves. Free speech has its limits, in US or in China (especially right after the Time Square car bomb.)

The Chinese students in US nowadays remind me of the Taiwanese students couple decades ago (or the obnoxious laowai you always see in Taipei or Shenzhen.) Good lord, just because you have a few bucks now, doesn’t mean you are the sh!t. Don’t talk so loud on the cell phone either, there are people around you who understand you.

Alas, terrorism, honesly? Did he buy bunch of propane tanks or taken money from Pakistani cab driver? Probably not.

I agree with Charles. I was once a Chinese student but I felt many of my fellow Chinese students didn’t pay attention to the law. Terrorist he is not, though. Hope he gets off lightly and goes back to China with a hard lesson learned.

A few days ago when some Chinese media inquired into the case over the phone, some officials from the Stevens Institute of Technology, where Zhai is a student, excused themselves, saying they knew nothing about it, and bluntly hung up the phone. Had the incident taken place in China, some US media outlets would have used it to cast blame on China’s human rights record. (China Daily, May 27, 2010)

Bill, I think Chinese media can make a fuss out of it as well. Frankly, the Chinese idealizes the US too much. It’s a brutish country in many ways, jailing the most people per capita. If you’re poor, you’re consdered a loser. Bombing wedding parties and killing villagers in other countries, no one cares.

I agree it seems way overblown to call this kid a “terrorist”. Is that really what the indictment said? It’s not an issue of translating from English to Chinese, then back into English, with something lost/added in the process?

As Charles says, however freedom-of-speech is defined, it’s not absolute. And uttering threats against a professor or a school building seem to clearly cross the line. But those are the allegations, and they need to be proven in court.

But a person can certainly be held accountable not just by their actions, but by their words. For instance, one can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater even if one has no intention of setting one, or “bomb” on an airplane/airport just for kicks. The penalty may not be as severe for just saying it as opposed to actually doing it, but there is a penalty nonetheless, and justifiably so.

It is surprising that the Chinese consulate wasn’t immediately notified. That would seem to be standard practice when dealing with a foreign national.

If this guy was accused and arrested truly because his different opinions with the faculty and publicly CRITICIZING HIS SCHOOL, then I WILL BE COMPELELY DISAPPOINTED AND HOPELESS with the whole JURISDICTION SYSTEM of the US. IF this were true, I don’t think anyone would trust the declared freedom of speech of people and Everyone HOLDs the rights to prosecute the police, the jurisdiction and the police of their rights infringement or even more severe, racial profiling.
If this guy did say something threatening the academic faculty, then he is to be in charge of civil penalty for his professor and making apolopy. It still has nothing to do with terrorism.
I will never go to New Jersey which has ruined my impression on this state.

” Stevens spokesman Michael Schinelli said Zhai was suspended March 11 _ nearly a month before his arrest _ after a lengthy investigation that found he had numerous violations of the school’s code of conduct.
Schinelli, who declined to detail the violations citing student privacy rules, said they involved Zhai and several individuals, none of them faculty.
Zhai appealed his suspension, Schinelli said, and it was upheld. Zhai was arrested April 15 after allegedly threatening in a letter or e-mail to burn down the administration building, Schinelli said.”

That seems to me made up. Letter OR e-mail – especially if you known the consequences to Tiantian…
Of course if it is an ongoing process there might be reasons to withhold information.

I’m not surprised. “Freedom of Speech is not absolute”?! Where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, I said it before. But obviously, some Chinese words are being taken way out of context in this case.

Incidentally, Bill, the legal standard in US regarding limits on Speech is typically based upon the effect on the “listener”. If Zhai’s words were not clearly understood by the “listener”, it would be ridiculous for the listener to claim a “threat” based purely upon his/her own suspicions.

Generally, a true “threat” is intended to result in fear in the “listener”. If the “listener” cannot even understand the “threat”, there is no point to the “threat”.

Furthermore, “Terrorist Act” should be differentiated from “Terrorist Threat”. The 2 are completely different. But both are considered “Terrorism”. The first would require some criminal act, the second requires only a verbal threat.

An example definition of “Act of Terrorism”, as defined by Virginia State criminal code, “”Act of terrorism” means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation.”

However, federal or state laws defining “Terrorist Threat” are not very clear, especially as differentiated from ordinary “threat”. Obviously, not all “threats” are consider “terrorist” in nature. But generally, there are 5 elements of “terrorist threat”.

1. Someone willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great harm.
2. The threat was made with the intent that it be taken as a threat.
3. The threat is so unequivocal and specific as to convey a grave purpose and immediate prospect of execution.
4. The threat actually caused fear in the victim.
5. The fear caused was reasonable.

In this case, many of these 5 elements are in doubt, particularly, the “immediate prospect of execution” and the “reasonable fear” elements. But obviously, verbal utterance alone would be sufficient. However, if the “reasonableness” of the listener is purely based upon his/her own cultural misunderstanding, that is not reasonable, that is pure racism. (But we are in the age of people fearing every Muslim on airplanes. At least in that respect, US is no less paranoid than China. Freedom or no freedom.)

On that note, if the legal limitations on Freedom of Speech is not reasonable, how is that any different than ARBITRARY limitations on Freedom of Speech? No difference at all.

If he has a bail set to $20,000, he only needs to pay a fraction of that to get himself out of jail for now while his case is pending.

If the bail is available and set to $20,000, the word “terrorist” has got to be lost in translation. Under the Obama administration they may or may not do extraordinary renditions, may or may not suspend Miranda rights, may or may not try in civilian courts, but no way in hell they will let terrorist suspects go on bail.

after which, hopefully you will realize this case has nothing to do with “freedom of speech” at all.

It’s safe to say that most Chinese netizens espousing the freedom of speech understands neither its philosophical underpinnings nor how it is practically applied in the West. Neither do most Westerners, but at least they tend to avow their intention to defend to death your right to disagree, rather than default to accusing you of being a paid shill. But that’s another story.

This is not really a free speech issue. If you joke about a bomb in your luggage at the airport, you get arrested. Likewise, if you say that you’re thinking of killing yourself in front of the wrong person, you could find yourself committed.

Most Chinese completely misunderstand freedom of speech. In large part, this is because the Chinese government constantly demonizes freedom of speech, making it appear that Americans can say any crazy, irresponsible thing that they want without regard for the consequences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ultimately, the founding founders’ commitment to free speech was meant to protect Americans’ right to engage in political speech from the tyranny of a repressive government that might not be too overly fond of criticism (remind you of anyone?).

Sure, this case makes the U.S. look a bit crazy and over-sensitive. Even so, the failure to understand is China’s.

To Chen #11:
I agree, if your suppositions are correct, then something is seriously amiss in New Jersey and in the US. But those are substantial “if’s”.

If someone utters a threat, I don’t think that’s a civil matter.

To Josef #12:
it would be mind-bogglingly stupid if this kid sent a letter or email with his name on it, detailing what he was threatening to do. I imagine we’ll find out when the case goes to trial. On the other hand, this kid doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

To JXie #15:
great point. If he was being charged as a “terrorist”, there’s no way that he would have the option of seeing the light of day before trial. Maybe it is a translation issue after all.

To Jason #20:
do you have any specific examples of objectionable things these groups said? I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve certainly never heard of the law you mentioned in quotes. I imagine the stuff those groups say would be governed by hate speech laws, rather than this college kid utterly threats against his professor.

To RV #13:
“limits on Speech is typically based upon the effect on the “listener”. If Zhai’s words were not clearly understood by the “listener”, it would be ridiculous for the listener to claim a “threat” based purely upon his/her own suspicions.”
—if that’s the standard, then it makes perfect sense. The listener may have misunderstood Zhai’s words, but if the effect of this misunderstanding was for the listener to perceive a threat, then naturally that’s what he would claim. He’s not merely suspecting a threat; he’s perceiving a real one from Zhai’s words, even if it’s a misunderstanding.

“Generally, a true “threat” is intended to result in fear in the “listener”. If the “listener” cannot even understand the “threat”, there is no point to the “threat”.”
—but if the listener is claiming that he felt threatened, it seems that Zhai’s words had already resulted in fear, whether those words had been misunderstood or not. Whether Zhai had intended such would be a different matter. If someone said something to you that made you feel threatened, would you wait around and say: “hmm, I wonder if he really intended to make me feel terrified”, or would you go to the cops? If there’s a life lesson here, it’s that one shouldn’t say something flippant that others could construe as a physical threat.

As for cultural misunderstanding, this is a Chinese kid in the US. The onus is on the CHinese kid to conform to the social mores of the US. After all, he’s in a place where he is governed by US law. If you turn this around, would you give an American visitor in China much sympathy if his defense to having broken a Chinese law is that “well, this isn’t a crime in the US”? As Charles said earlier, when in ROme…

I would disagree that security is taken seriously in an airport in light of 9/11 where unfortunately most terrorists do their dirty deeds. I would disagree of how US laws comes up with ‘terrorist threat’ for this person. The difference a terrorist and a non-terrorist act is that a terrorist act is done because of his/her political beliefs. As for this person, incidents of people making threats to fellow co-workers are quite common and shouldn’t be labeled as terrorists acts.

There is no such thing as free speech. Words like ‘freedom’ and ‘unregulated’ are ideological constructs that we use to label policies, bodies of law, social customs, etc. that we favor.

The Chinese government’s mischaracterization of freedom of speech in the U.S. (and the greater West) results from ignorance, a deliberate effort to demonize, or a combination of the two. Indeed, Americans’ speech is ‘unfree’ in a multitude of ways. In addition to not being allowed to talk of bombs in airports (something that was true long before 9/11), I’m also not allowed to threaten President Obama’s life, scream and yell at the top of my lungs in my neighbor’s living room at 3 am, or shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. In addition to these, there are also laws against defamation, hate speech, and child pornography. Of course, defining hate speech is tricky. Why is it exactly that the KKK continues to disseminate its ugly message? Americans will say that the KKK is allowed to continue because the alternative is worse – i.e., a government that possesses the power to limit our speech will eventually oppress those who seek to criticize it. It’s the ‘slippery slope’ argument – imagine: first a government dominated by Republicans outlaws the KKK, then it outlaws communists, then it outlaws criticism of the president during wartime, and then it finally outlaws the Democratic party. The founding fathers of the U.S. believed that men, by nature, tended toward tyranny and that a person in power will ultimately attempt to use that power to arrogate to himself even more power. This is the reason for the separation of powers, as well as the founding fathers’ commitment to freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Likewise, in order that the government not have a monopoly on violence, they also gave Americans the right to bear arms.

Again, freedom of speech in the U.S. protects from us from the government. It doesn’t not protect us from our boss, our parents, our teachers (so long as we attend private schools), or our idiot neighbors. My boss can ban political speech in the office. So too, when I was a teenager, my parents could tell me not to wear my favorite ‘I love pussy’ t-shirt to school. Neither restriction constitutes a violation of my constitutional right to free speech.

This idiot Zhai Tiantian who had the beef with his professor is unlikely to be a terrorist in the same way the Kahlid Sheik Muhammed and Timothy McVeigh were terrorists, but he still may be a disgruntled, violent scumbag with a serious personality disorder who threatened his professor. Terrorist or not, if he really did threaten to commit arson and/or harm his professor, then send him back home. China can have him.

“—if that’s the standard, then it makes perfect sense. The listener may have misunderstood Zhai’s words, but if the effect of this misunderstanding was for the listener to perceive a threat, then naturally that’s what he would claim. He’s not merely suspecting a threat; he’s perceiving a real one from Zhai’s words, even if it’s a misunderstanding.”

The legal “reasonableness” standard is an OBJECTIVE standard, not a subjective standard. One is not liable for the subjective imagination of possible “threats” perceived. I don’t know what you mean by “real” threat, there is no such term in the legal codes.

“—but if the listener is claiming that he felt threatened, it seems that Zhai’s words had already resulted in fear, whether those words had been misunderstood or not. Whether Zhai had intended such would be a different matter. If someone said something to you that made you feel threatened, would you wait around and say: “hmm, I wonder if he really intended to make me feel terrified”, or would you go to the cops? If there’s a life lesson here, it’s that one shouldn’t say something flippant that others could construe as a physical threat.”

Anyone can go to the cops based upon whatever they “claim” they felt, but that doesn’t mean that the cops met the legal standard needed to arrest someone for the alleged “threat”. If there is a life lesson here, it is that some cops and some local courts will allow arrests on flippant claims based upon the hearsay of some paranoid people. But then again, what is the legal definition of “flippant”? Are all things said flippant “threats” worthy of arrests? What if these accusations were “flippant”? Should the accusers be arrested for making “flippant” claims? Should the cops be arrested for making “flippant” arrests?

“As for cultural misunderstanding, this is a Chinese kid in the US. The onus is on the CHinese kid to conform to the social mores of the US. After all, he’s in a place where he is governed by US law. If you turn this around, would you give an American visitor in China much sympathy if his defense to having broken a Chinese law is that “well, this isn’t a crime in the US”? As Charles said earlier, when in ROme…”

The “social mores”? Since when is “social mores” standard of laws? Obviously, in China, Criminal threats will get one arrested. The question is, whether this Chinese kid actually made any “threats” as defined by law. If this is a “cultural misunderstanding”, would you want Chinese people judge American visitors’ word purely by the Chinese understanding (perceived fear)? Would it be a “threat”, if some Chinese Korean War Veteran “perceives” an American visitor to be making a “threat” of revenge for the Korean War?!

And I thought the onus in the West is for the government to meet the at least some standard of proof before arresting someone. Or are we now discussing how the Chinese kid should prove that he didn’t violate some ‘social mores’ of US beyond the laws?

“The legal “reasonableness” standard is an OBJECTIVE standard, not a subjective standard.”
—agreed. I’m not saying the kid will be convicted. That will ultimately depend on the evidence. However, it should be noted that the evidence in this case will be weighed against what a “reasonable American person” would have perceived. And we’ll have to see.

“but that doesn’t mean that the cops met the legal standard needed to arrest someone for the alleged “threat””
—again agreed. The charges may not stick. However, he has been charged, so the DA must have felt that the cops had uncovered enough evidence to sustain such a charge. If the cops had clearly overstepped their bounds, I would imagine that the DA wouldn’t have brought the case forward.

“Are all things said flippant “threats” worthy of arrests?”
—that would depend on the individual circumstances of each case, wouldn’t it?

“The question is, whether this Chinese kid actually made any “threats” as defined by law.”
—I agree, and we can speculate all day. But the standard will be American law. Ultimately, that’s for the American/New Jersey courts to decide.

“Since when is “social mores” standard of laws?”
—now when did I say that? On the other hand, don’t the laws of the land reflect the limits of what her citizens consider to be acceptable? This kid will be judged based on whether a reasonable American would have perceived a threat from his words.

“And I thought the onus in the West is for the government to meet the at least some standard of proof before arresting someone.”
—and what would be your basis for suspecting that they haven’t met such burden of proof? Are you privy to the details of the case and to the nature of the evidence?

““Since when is “social mores” standard of laws?”
—now when did I say that? On the other hand, don’t the laws of the land reflect the limits of what her citizens consider to be acceptable? This kid will be judged based on whether a reasonable American would have perceived a threat from his words.”

Actually, not all social mores are reflected in the laws. Clearly, the laws do not cater to every social mores, nor every item of limitation that the citizens consider to be acceptable. If every social mores are catered, there would be “decency” laws and anti-falsehood laws governing Western media. The logical basis of laws is to prevent actual harm, to compensate for actual harm, not to set standards of social mores governing aspects of life in a society. Again, “perception” is merely one aspect, and it must be also based upon the likelihood of an actual crime and the potential harm it can cause.

This is a school, not an airplane. If the utterance was public, spoken before many bystanders, then there is more likelihood of public panic and potential harm.

*As for my details, here is another report about this. In this report, the school calls the charge involving verbal threats, and says that the “terrorist threat” charge was a misreporting by the foreign press. But then, later on, the school official says that Zhai was arrested for a letter or email that where he threatened to burn down a “administration” building. Clearly, the school is not getting its own story straight. If there was a written threat to burn down a building, it would be a terrorist threat.

Zhai’s lawyer Hai said on Monday that he is collecting evidence and will meet Zhai in jail this week.

“So far there is little evidence that can prove Zhai was about to commit arson,” he said. “Only one professor said he heard Zhai claiming to burn the school building.”

OK, I’m hearing all these different stories about what Zhai actually did as “threat”, and they are conflicting. Obviously, I’m putting more faith in Zhai’s Lawyer’s words, because he could be disbarred for making any false statements in public to affect the outcome of a case. The School officials obviously can’t get their own story straight. If it was merely a “verbal threat”, the police are stretching the credibility of one professor beyond the standard of law.

To RV:
“says that the “terrorist threat” charge was a misreporting by the foreign press.”
—I think some of us have been suspecting that. Good to clear that up.

“Zhai was arrested for a letter or email that where he threatened to burn down a “administration” building.”
—with this kid, it really seems like the elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top.

“If there was a written threat to burn down a building, it would be a terrorist threat.”
—to a lay-person like me, that seems more like an “arsonist threat”. Put another way, if he actually did burn down an admin building, would he have committed arson, or terrorism? And it seems even his own lawyer is speaking in terms of arson and not terrorism.

“—with this kid, it really seems like the elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top.”

If you believe the charges, which apparently, the school cannot tell a straight story on, even if their lives depended on it. (Oh, that might be taken as another threat by that school?) If I’m that kid, I would definitely ask my money back for the “education”.

“—to a lay-person like me, that seems more like an “arsonist threat”. Put another way, if he actually did burn down an admin building, would he have committed arson, or terrorism? And it seems even his own lawyer is speaking in terms of arson and not terrorism.”

“Terrorism” has 2 elements for intent: committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation. If the threat was to burn down the school burning in this case, the school seems to be implying that the threat was made to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large, eg. in a school building.

Incidentally, Terrorist acts can include any number of violent crimes, such as murder, arson, malicious maiming, battery, even possession and preparation of explosives. The only difference between “terrorism” and “arson” is the degree of malicious intent. A mere “arson” is simply someone who burns things with intent to damage property, but if that person also intends to intimidate someone, then it does rise to “terrorism”. For example, person A burns person B’s house while B is on vacation, person A also makes the fire look like an accident. That’s “arson”, because person A attempted to make the fire look like an accident and because A only wanted to damage B’s house (hidden revenge).

Furthermore, if the threat is merely against 1 individual for private reasons, it would not be intimidation of civilian population at large. Here the school is obviously implying that Zhai intended the threat to intimidate the school administrators publicly. Thus, the school is implying that Zhai did make a “terrorist threat”. (which again, does not jive with what Zhai’s lawyer found out so far.)

Frankly, I don’t know why Zhai’s lawyer is having such a hard time in locating evidence. (It’s been over 1 month since his arrest). If there was a “letter or email”, it should be released to Zhai’s lawyer immediately for his defense. I mean, how much more clear cut can it be?

Yet, we get conflicting stories from the school as to what exactly happened. So yeah, there appears to be many holes in the school’s story.

So, I’ll wait for the release of that alleged “letter or email” from the school or the cops. And if there is no such “letter or email” coming, it would be pretty clear that the school was lying. (But so far, that whole story from the school about “misreporting in the foreign press” is starting to sound like the beginning of backtracking by the school.)

I mean, seriously folks, if the allegation of the “threat” letter/email is even close to the truth, and if I was the school official, I would stick by the story of “terrorist threat” because such a threat (if true) is serious. Why (all the sudden now) make such a ridiculous backtracking by saying that the foreign press is blowing the story out of proportion?? So yeah, the school is making itself look like it cried wolf.

To RV:
“the charges, which apparently, the school cannot tell a straight story on”
—actually, in those articles you provided, the school seems very clear. It had nothing to do with terrorism. It was a threat to a professor, and a threat of arson to the school.

“If the threat was to burn down the school burning in this case, the school seems to be implying that the threat was made to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large, eg. in a school building.”
—the legal definition of “terrorist threat” is no longer relevant, since that came about due to a mistake by the foreign press. The school isn’t talking about terrorism. This kid’s lawyer isn’t talking about terrorism. Apparently, neither was the DA.

“A mere “arson” is simply someone who burns things with intent to damage property, but if that person also intends to intimidate someone, then it does rise to “terrorism”.”
—so are you saying that, even though the kid isn’t being charged with terrorism, you feel that he should be? Maybe you should get in touch with the Jersey DA in that case.

“Here the school is obviously implying that Zhai intended the threat to intimidate the school administrators publicly.”
—I have no idea what the school is trying to imply. We only have what the school reportedly said in those articles.

“the school is implying that Zhai did make a “terrorist threat”.”
—except that they’ve already clarified that he didn’t. And it doesn’t look like that’s what he was charged with. At this point, that’s the bottom line.

“If there was a “letter or email”, it should be released to Zhai’s lawyer immediately for his defense. I mean, how much more clear cut can it be?”
—agreed. We’ll have to ask Zhai’s lawyer, or we’ll have to wait for the trial.

“we get conflicting stories from the school as to what exactly happened.”
—we do? Kid got suspended. Kid appealed suspension. Suspension upheld. Kid allegedly threatened a professor verbally, and the school in writing. The story seems pretty cut and dried. What remains is for stuff to be proven in court.

BTW, the wording of “terrorist threat” came from the misinterpreting of the “indictment statement” by the foreign press. That statement would’ve come from the DA. The school isn’t the one that would’ve issued the indictment anyhow. Not sure how the school is backtracking from somebody’s misreporting of a third party statement.

Ultimately, all of this is speculation upon conjecture over a series of suppositions. Besides, the key is no longer just what the school said. It’s that the cops investigated, and found enough evidence to recommend charges; the DA looked it over, and saw enough there to proceed with an indictment (not of terrorism, btw). But at this point, the trial can’t start soon enough.

I agree with YWX. This is WHY I can hardly believe my own assumption. But according to what Zhai said, he never mentioned anything about arson. If he did not, how would he get arrested simply because of having beef with prof? This is what I feel tricky about this case.

The School’s story is obviously one side, it’s the school’s allegation that served as the foundation for DA’s indictment. Obviously, the school IS implying that kid did intend to intimidate.

I don’t know where you are getting this “arsonist threat”. I have never seen a code defining that crime. I was merely explaining the difference between “arson” and “terrorism” in legal terms.

I also don’t know where you are getting this “misinterpreting of indictment statement” from. It’s in none of the linked articles I can find. As far I can tell, the indictment statement itself said the incident was treated as a “terrorist threat.”

The school’s story now is that there is “misreporting by the foreign press”, but it does not say that it was a misinterpretation of the indictment statement”. Nor does the school say where the alleged “misreporting” is occurring.

Obviously, if there is a written letter/email of threat intended to intimidate, that would be “terrorist threat”. (very cut and dry). But if there is no such letter/email, then I don’t know where the school is coming up with the imaginary “letter/email”.

Hai Ming, Zhai Tiantian’s lawyer, told the US China Press that America is a nation with freedom of speech and that people cannot be convicted on the basis of what they think or say

Hai Ming is stupid for even trying to run that argument. Threatening to commit violence isn’t a matter of free speech – period. It is a criminal act in most countries, the US being no exception – and I doubt you can legally get away with threatening to beat someone up or burn their house/place of work down in China either.

The issue is what the defendant actually said. And because it’s one person’s word against another it’s impossible to be sure. Of course I don’t think he should be convicted as a terrorist or potential arsonist. Perhaps it would help if he admitted that he spoke out of turn, or that his comments could have been taken as a threat, and apologised – it might help smooth things over. If he didn’t say anything in the slightest that was threatening I can understand that’s he in a difficult position.

To RV:
“it’s the school’s allegation that served as the foundation for DA’s indictment.”
—indeed. And the DA never indicted on “terrorism”. So that might shed light at least on what the school DIDN’T allege.

“the school IS implying that kid did intend to intimidate.”
—of course. The professor in question, and the school itself in the form of the targeted building in question. Allegedly, mind you.

“I don’t know where you are getting this “arsonist threat””
—just going by what the kid’s own lawyer said (“Zhai’s lawyer Hai said on Monday that he is collecting evidence and will meet Zhai in jail this week. “So far there is little evidence that can prove Zhai was about to commit arson,” he said. “Only one professor said he heard Zhai claiming to burn the school building.””). You quoted it in #27.

“I also don’t know where you are getting this “misinterpreting of indictment statement” from.”
—
“The indictment statement said the incident was treated as a “terrorist threat.””—from Bill’s OP, 4th paragraph.

“The charge, which can refer to a range of verbal threats, has been reported by some Chinese media outlets as Zhai being arrested for allegedly being a terrorist.
College officials say that misunderstanding, as well as several foreign news reports that seem to indicate Zhai was arrested for questioning authority or clashing with a teacher, has distorted what they say is a long-running disciplinary situation into a mini-international incident.” (from NJ Herald article you linked).

Ultimately, it comes down to what’s actually in the indictment. We can argue all day about the difference between “misinterpreting of indictment statement” vs “misreporting by the foreign press”. And it still won’t change the charges one iota.

““I don’t know where you are getting this “arsonist threat””
—just going by what the kid’s own lawyer said (“Zhai’s lawyer Hai said on Monday that he is collecting evidence and will meet Zhai in jail this week. “So far there is little evidence that can prove Zhai was about to commit arson,” he said. “Only one professor said he heard Zhai claiming to burn the school building.””). You quoted it in #27.”

What his lawyer said about what the evidence is does not show what was charged. And as I said before, Terrorism can include number of violent acts, such as Arson. Obviously, if the Terrorist threat is based upon arson with intent to intimidate, 1 key question was whether there was the element of “arson” in the threat. That’s hardly saying there is anything called “arsonist threat”.

““I also don’t know where you are getting this “misinterpreting of indictment statement” from.”
—
“The indictment statement said the incident was treated as a “terrorist threat.””—from Bill’s OP, 4th paragraph.”

How is that an “misinterpretation”? Are you saying that the indictment statement said something else other than “terrorist threat”?

“College officials say that misunderstanding, as well as several foreign news reports that seem to indicate Zhai was arrested for questioning authority or clashing with a teacher, has distorted what they say is a long-running disciplinary situation into a mini-international incident.” (from NJ Herald article you linked).”

So which part of this is saying that the foreign press “misinterpreted the indictment statement”? Clearly, the school is backtracking this into a mere “disciplinary situation”!

So, let me get this straight, the indictment statement says “terrorist threat”, the school now calls it a “disciplinary situation” (over an allegedly WRITTEN letter/email of threat to burn down a school building, school’s own allegation)?! How is this NOT backtracking by the school? When has WRITTEN letter/email of threat to burn down a school building been downgraded to the level of a mere “disciplinary situation”??

It does ultimately come down to what the indictment says. However, since the indictment is pretty much BASED ENTIRELY on what the school itself alleged, it doesn’t look like it’s going make much sense!

“And as I said before, Terrorism can include number of violent acts…”
—which is all very wonderful. But you’re the one worrying about terrorism. Not what I’m talking about.

“Are you saying that the indictment statement said something else other than “terrorist threat”?”
—that would be the “misunderstanding” part. Bill’s OP was quoting China Daily.

“So which part of this is saying that the foreign press “misinterpreted the indictment statement”?”
—umm, when did I say that the foreign press said it in exactly those words? If you like direct quotes, try it like this: “misreporting by the foreign press” was a result of misinterpreting the “indictment statement” (and that’s my sentence, and not quoting except for the stuff actually in quotes). Like I said, we can argue about this all day. If you want to save some time, maybe find the actual indictment. Otherwise, like I said, we’re arguing about “speculation upon conjecture over a series of suppositions”.

“So, let me get this straight, the indictment statement says “terrorist threat””
—that’s the point. That was “misreporting by the foreign press”.

“the school now calls it a “disciplinary situation”
—The disciplinary action was regarding the student’s suspension, which predated the appeal, which predated the failed appeal, which predated the whole threat business. I thought the sequence of events was pretty clear.

“How is this NOT backtracking by the school?”
—because the “disciplinary action” has no relation to the current allegations/charges.

“When has WRITTEN letter/email of threat to burn down a school building been downgraded to the level of a mere “disciplinary situation”??”
—it hasn’t. See above. Again, the sequence of events should not be that elusive.

“However, since the indictment is pretty much BASED ENTIRELY on what the school itself alleged”
—I’d say the investigation was based entirely on what the school alleged. I thought the indictment would be based on what that investigation subsequently found in terms of evidence, as well as what the DA thought he/she could prove in court based on that evidence. Hey, but you’re the lawyer.

“And as I said before, Terrorism can include number of violent acts…”
—which is all very wonderful. But you’re the one worrying about terrorism. Not what I’m talking about.

I don’t know what you are talking about. Zhai’s attorney was merely discussing “arson” as an element of terrorist threat, not “arsonist threat”, (since there is no such crime in the code.)
Here is what the NJ Herald news site said, “Zhai Tiantian, a former graduate student at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was arrested April 15 and faces a charge of making a terroristic threat.” Obviously, NOT just the foreign press misinterpretation.

“—that would be the “misunderstanding” part. Bill’s OP was quoting China Daily”

The school said nothing about that as the “misunderstanding” part.

“—umm, when did I say that the foreign press said it in exactly those words?”

Well, that might be your personal opinion, but I don’t see that as what the school said. The school said NOTHING about the foreign press misinterpreting the “indictment statement”.

“—The disciplinary action was regarding the student’s suspension, which predated the appeal, which predated the failed appeal, which predated the whole threat business. I thought the sequence of events was pretty clear.
—because the “disciplinary action” has no relation to the current allegations/charges.”

So now, are you saying that the disciplinary action is SEPARATE from the current charge? Well, that’s ODD, because the school said the foreign press “has distorted what they say is a long-running disciplinary situation into a mini-international incident.”

Now, the foreign press (and domestic press in NJ) reported the indictment as “Terrorist Threat”. They reported almost nothing about what happened in the “suspension” (since the school has refused to release the details of that suspension). How are the foreign press “distorting” the long running “disciplinary situation”, when there is almost no reporting on the “suspension”? I mean, seriously, I counted only 1 sentence in Bill’s article mentioning the suspension. That’s the basis of the “misreporting” of the “disciplinary situation” according to you??

Once again, Here is what the NJ news site said, “Zhai Tiantian, a former graduate student at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was arrested April 15 and faces a charge of making a terroristic threat.” Obviously, NOT just the foreign press misinterpretation, and the NJ Herald news site didn’t quote any foreign press. (Unless NJ no longer has English as the official language).

“Zhai’s attorney was merely discussing “arson” as an element of terrorist threat, not “arsonist threat””
—hmm, sounded to me that he was discussing arson as the crime with which his client was charged. BUt you know what, we should just ask him.

“Zhai Tiantian, a former graduate student at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was arrested April 15 and faces a charge of making a terroristic threat.
The charge, which can refer to a range of verbal threats, has been reported by some Chinese media outlets as Zhai being arrested for allegedly being a terrorist.
College officials say that misunderstanding…”
—that last bit would be the school talking about the “misunderstanding” part.

“The school said NOTHING about the foreign press misinterpreting the “indictment statement”.”
—not as a direct quote. They said a “misunderstanding”. You can decide for yourself what has been misunderstood, given the context.

“are you saying that the disciplinary action is SEPARATE from the current charge?”
—yep, that’s how I read it.

“the school said the foreign press “has distorted what they say is a long-running disciplinary situation into a mini-international incident.””
—because he wasn’t charged for his breaking the school’s code of conduct, which resulted in his disciplinary action; he was charged for allegedly uttering threats in response to said action.

Now, since you’re the lawyer, if you wanted to find out the details of the indictment, do you think it’s more useful debating quotations from newspapers, or using your lawyer training to find the actual indictment. Besides, aren’t you one of the guys who (when it suits you) isn’t so fond of “western media”? You don’t trust western media, but you’d rather debate the phrases used by a western media outlet than to get it from the horse’s mouth?

The lawyer said that before the dispute, Zhai Tiantian expressed dissatisfaction with the institute in a TV interview in which he said he wanted to sue the school for racial discrimination.
“This is probably the real reason why the school is dealing with him this way,” Hai said.

“—hmm, sounded to me that he was discussing arson as the crime with which his client was charged. BUt you know what, we should just ask him.”

We should, thus, I still don’t know where you are getting the “arsonist threat” from. His lawyer said nothing about “arsonist threat”. The lawyer’s mere mentioning of “arson” does not imply that “arson” is the ONLY element involved in the charge.

“The charge, which can refer to a range of verbal threats, has been reported by some Chinese media outlets as Zhai being arrested for allegedly being a terrorist.
College officials say that misunderstanding…”
—that last bit would be the school talking about the “misunderstanding” part.”

So again, this is ONLY a verbal threat now? What about the WRITTEN letter/email?
AGAIN, the NJ Herald reported it as “Terrorist Threat”. I don’t know what part of “misunderstanding” is in this plain reporting.

“—not as a direct quote. They said a “misunderstanding”. You can decide for yourself what has been misunderstood, given the context.”

Given what NJ Herald reported, I don’t see anything in the charge other than “Terrorist threat”. Nor do I see where the “misunderstanding” is, according to the school. Clearly, mere “verbal threat” could be “Terrorist threat”! I see nothing to preclude “verbal threat” from “Terrorist threat”.

“Now, since you’re the lawyer, if you wanted to find out the details of the indictment, do you think it’s more useful debating quotations from newspapers, or using your lawyer training to find the actual indictment. Besides, aren’t you one of the guys who (when it suits you) isn’t so fond of “western media”? You don’t trust western media, but you’d rather debate the phrases used by a western media outlet than to get it from the horse’s mouth?”

Sure, I want the details, but obvious inconsistencies in allegations make it very easy for any lawyer to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. All I can say is if these are the school’s allegations, I can see why we are not seeing any clear proof of “threat” after more than 1 month.

And I don’t trust Western media “bias”. I’ll let you know when I spot some bias here. But I don’t see any disputes about what the NJ Herald reported as the charge of “terrorist threat”, not from the school, not from Zhai, and not from the foreign press. And just because I see “bias” sometimes, doesn’t mean my view of “bias” should suit your “context”. I mean, really, Have I ever claimed that EVERY statement from EVERY Western Media must be “biased”??!!

What I debate here, is not the “phrases” they used. It’s the assertions you made. AGAIN, there is no such thing as “arsonist threat” in the criminal statutes. NOR has the school said anything about the foreign press misinterpreting the “indictment statement”, when NJ Herald read the charge the same as the foreign press.

Since you are making these assertions based upon your own “context”, I want to get the answers from your mouth. Now, at least we are clear, you are reading the articles based upon your own “context” interpretation.

So again, the school’s story makes no sense. “Verbal threats” can be “terrorist threats”, clearly. If they are implying that “verbal threats” to burn down a school building is not “terrorist threat”, they are being ridiculous.

Siebel, a fourth-floor resident of Davis Hall, was one of the students detained in the Schaefer Center gym for nearly 10 hours yesterday and police caught him as a result of questioning the students then, Griffin said.
Siebel, originally from Brick, N.J. was charged with three counts of arson and one count of terrorist threats. He was released on his own recognizance and turned over to his parents, Griffin said.

OK, interesting, here is a guy who actually charged with 3 counts of arson PLUS 1 count of terrorist threat, and yet, he was “released on his own recognizance.” But Zhai was put on $20,000 bond for the charge of terrorist threat, which Zhai couldn’t afford.

*also later, Siebel was originally charged with three counts of arson and one count of making terroristic threats at the Hoboken waterfront school but those charges were dismissed when he pleaded guilty to criminal mischief. Siebel admitted that he committed the arson and wrote the threatening note.
Siebel was sentenced to three years probation.

Same school, actual admission of arson and threat, ZERO bond, 3 years probation, in 2008-2009. Worse, the police put up security around the school dorms and checked everyone’s ID, and questioned lots of people.

**Oh yeah, what was that the school official said in all the press regarding the Zhai case?

“This is an institution that’s been here for 140 years, and has never had anything like this happen,” Schinelli said. “It’s an unfortunate situation.”

No, Mr. Schinelli, you have a very short memory! And your story is getting more and more ridiculous!!

“I still don’t know where you are getting the “arsonist threat” from.”
—he was THREATening to commit ARSON. Is the path from A to B that convoluted in this instance? And are you really reduced to just debating words and quotes at this point. I mean, that’s fine by me. You do what you gotta do.

“The lawyer’s mere mentioning of “arson” does not imply that “arson” is the ONLY element involved in the charge.”
—but that’s the only element we know of for sure, since he actually said it. If you want to speculate about what he DIDN’T say, you go right ahead. That seems to be a real hobby for you today.

“So again, this is ONLY a verbal threat now? What about the WRITTEN letter/email?”
—oh brother. Are you really that stumped, or are you just pretending to be on FM? For someone who’s not fond of western media when that’s the convenient position to take, you sure hang on their…every…literal…word….without consideration for anything else said before it, after it, or that’s already been mentioned or stipulated elsewhere.

“AGAIN, the NJ Herald reported it as “Terrorist Threat”.”
—you know what, if you’re gonna quote them, you should actually do that. They called it “terroristic threat”— and I have no idea what that means. You’ll have to ask them.

“I don’t see anything in the charge other than “Terrorist threat””
—“terroristic”, actually. It’s not even a word. So I can’t help you there. Like I said, if that gets you bent out of shape, you know where to contact them (there’s a “contact us” button right on the banner).

“Nor do I see where the “misunderstanding” is”
—I’m afraid your sight is not something I can help you with. I think you’ll simply have to see what you want to see.

“I see nothing to preclude “verbal threat” from “Terrorist threat”.”
—so I ask again: are you saying that the kid should have been charged as a terrorist? Cuz you know, the Jersey DA might want to hear from you about that.

“but obvious inconsistencies in allegations make it very easy for any lawyer to poke holes in the prosecution’s case.”
—now, I’m no lawyer. But I must say, I would’ve guessed that lawyers would judge the merits of a case based on the actual evidence, as opposed to the snippets we get in the newspaper. Cuz you know, the absence of hard evidence released to the press doesn’t PRECLUDE the possibility that much more damning evidence will be presented at trial. And the trial that takes place in court is the one that matters, not the ones in the New Jersey Herald.

“I can see why we are not seeing any clear proof of “threat” after more than 1 month.”
—yes, because it must be standard practice to release real evidence, like this letter the kid allegedly wrote, to the press first before actually presenting it at trial. And I’m sure the DA’s priority is to prove this kid’s guilt to the subscribers of the Herald before he proves it in court.

“Have I ever claimed that EVERY statement from EVERY Western Media must be “biased”??!!”
—nope. But “western media bias” is a not-infrequent phrase in your posts. As I’ve pointed out to others, it seems they’re biased unless you agree with what they’re saying. Let’s just say that, when you accuse the media of bias only when you don’t agree with them, there may well be bias, but it’s not where you think it is.

Hey, so where’s the indictment. Rather than this amusing debate about words, it would be nice to see the actual indictment. At least we’d be clear about what the kid is and isn’t being charged with. Since you’re the lawyer, that is really a job better suited to you.

“AGAIN, there is no such thing as “arsonist threat” in the criminal statutes.”
—listen, that’s useful information. But since I’m not a lawyer, it shouldn’t surprise you that I don’t know how things are phrased in criminal statutes.

“NOR has the school said anything about the foreign press misinterpreting the “indictment statement””
—please feel free to speculate on what it is that the school felt the foreign press had misunderstood. I can see that is a critical piece of information in determining what is and isn’t in the indictment…probably more useful than looking at the indictment itself.

“you are reading the articles based upon your own “context” interpretation.”
—just as you have, replete with speculation galore.

“So again, the school’s story makes no sense.”
—it’s fantastic that you’ve been able to come to that conclusion without seeing all the evidence. I’m sure Mr. Zhai would love for you to be on his jury. And they say newspapers are a dying institution. It seems you can still derive plenty of stuff from the NJ Herald. It would make for a fantastic testimonial.

Why do people take what they read in the media or the internet as gospel? We do not know what was actually said and what the charges are but only what’s reported in the press…

The Chinese media and blogsphere are going ape over this story. China Daily even reported that Zhai is being held in the Hudson County jail in New York state!!! If you think about it, why would NJ police hand Zhai over to NY?
So just take whatever you read, unless it is an official document, with a grain of salt. What did Zhai say to the professor? We don’t know. Some suggested he might have said something like “大不了就拼了”. I doubt the professor would have understood what he meant if he said that to him/her in Chinese let alone calling the police. This has even created a lot of debate on the internet as to what the closest English translation of 大不了就拼了 is. Some very funny… http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Hubei/31453903.html

I doubt Zhai said anything like that in Chinese…just some creative writing on the part of the Chinese media and then widely cross-reported.

However, the following is true. Zhai has been going to Stevens since 2003, and has gotten his undergrad and graduate degrees there. He was a PhD graduate assistant at Stevens until this incident happened and has made the Dean’s list 3 times in the past 7 years. http://sse.stevens.edu/people/graduate-assistants/
One would think he is well known to his professors and other students. Hardly a poor Chinese student who just arrived and is not aware of what the American system or society is like. BTW Stevens is a private school. Zhai’s family should be pretty well off to be able to afford to put him through school all these years. His father, being portrayed as a “helpless father” by some Chinese media is again stretching the truth. If Zhai’s bail is $20,000 as reported, he could have posted a bond for $2,000 instead of sitting in jail for a month. Was he hiding something from his family too?

Stevens spokesman Schinelli said Zhai was suspended on March 11 – nearly a month before his arrest – after a lengthy investigation that found he had numerous violations of the school’s code of conduct. So what really happened? A lot of unanswered questions for sure.

Whenever something like this happens, people tend to turn it into a racial issue and claim that it’s caused by anti-Chinese sentiments in America. I came here as a foreign student on an F-1 visa years ago just like Zhai did, and I have not experienced any of that myself. As long as we respect our own heritage, treat other people with respect, do our best in whatever we choose to do, other people, including Americans, will respect us too.

To RV #41:
Mr. Schinelli does have some explaining to do with regards to his lack of recall of events from less than 2 years ago.

Tough to explain the difference in bail conditions. Their circumstances were quite different. Siebel’s parents assumed responsibility for him; no such option with Zhai. Perhaps Zhai would be considered more of a flight risk. Are those difference enough to justify a difference of $20,000? I wouldn’t think so.

The detaining and questioning of students is understandable. The cops were investigating a fire. If they hadn’t detained people, they may not have caught the guy.

As for Siebel’s sentence, that came from the plea bargain at trial. We’re not there yet with Zhai’s case. We can’t even say for certain what he’s indicted with yet.

I believe this demonstrates the ultra sensitivity in American I spoke of earlier. A 12 year old girl was suspended from school for bringing streamer/confetti to school because the tiny fire cracker in the party popper is considered an “explosive charge”.

Given all the info, I think the most likely charge is based on New Jersey criminal statute:

2C:12-3(a) Terroristic Threats.

A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. A violation of this subsection is a crime of the second degree if it occurs during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. The actor shall be strictly liable upon proof that the crime occurred, in fact, during a declared period of national, State or county emergency. It shall not be a defense that the actor did not know that there was a declared period of emergency at the time the crime occurred.

The NJ statute used the words “terrorize” and “terror” in the definition, and also has similarities to the federal terrorism definition (see above post #13). Additionally, in NJ, third degree felonies have a 1 to 5 year state prison term range and $15,000 in fines, second degree felonies have a 5 to 10 year state prison term range and $150,000 in fines. In NJ, this crime is considered a very serious felony offense, about the same serious level as aggravated assault and drug trafficking.

State terrorism definitions are generally slightly different from the Federal definition. However, they all have similarities regarding “terrorizing” or “intimidating” civilian population.

Some have argued that many of these state criminal statutes are overly using the “terrorism” label. For one, many of the simple threats are not being used to intimidate for any political purposes.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to rename these crimes as “Threats of Endangerment.” (Because that’s really what they are about, threats that imply immediate danger to the victims.) And perhaps it is better to limit “terrorism” crimes to Federal crimes.

But from the current legal perspective, “terroristic threat” is as good of a name for this type of crimes as any. BTW, most states have similar statutes with similar names, NJ is not alone.

To RV:
as a non-American non-lawyer, I have no place in commenting on the legal differences between state and federal statutes on the definition of terrorism and related words. Based on your last China Daily link, the lawyer is quoted as referring to charges of ‘terrorism’. Not sure why terrorism is in quotes. But in any event, I have to assume the guy’s lawyer knows what the charges are. So it does appear that he is charged with terrorism, and on that point I stand corrected.

The lawyer Hai reported in China Daily is Zhai’s immigration lawyer and not his defense lawyer. Zhai has a government-appointed lawyer for his defense. So the “terrorism” charge cited in China Daily may be misquoted or mis-reported, just like the statement that Zhai is held at Hudson County jail in NY state . Hudson County Correctional Center is in NJ.

To James,
thanks for clearing that up. So this “lawyer” we’ve been hearing from in various press reports isn’t the lawyer worth hearing from wrt the criminal case anyway. And one wonders how much of the evidence he would’ve seen, to be able to pass judgment on the merits of the criminal case. So all of this remains idle speculation until we hear from someone who knows of what they speak, and that may not happen until the trial commences.

I was pretty shocked to see this article myself. I think that the media is simple trying to use sensationalist words like “terrorist threat” because they know that people will listen with those hot button phrases. I doubt that he was ACTUALLY accused of terrorist acts.
I think that what actually happened was that this kid was pretty upset about his professor being a jerk. I would not doubt that this kid was treated unfairly. I have had a professor like that and I know how it feels. But, I think that the student being Chinese national and unaware of the effect his words would have in the U.S, where almost EVERYONE is on edge about the slightest indication of violence and threat, had more to do with the problem.
I am sure that the student had acted angrily and that the professor was genuinly scared that he would do something violent. Afterall, there was that incident in Virginia Tech where the student acted strangely and weird and said violent things and then ended up killiing over 30 people.
It’s obviously a misunderstanding.

Liu Ye plays a young scientist whose rising academic status must confront the dark forces of the politics, ego, and cultural insensitivity of the American university he was attending in. The film is based on true events, loosely inspired by the true story of Gang Lu, a Chinese physics student.
The film stars Liu Xing (Liu Ye), as a humble, but brilliant, Chinese student, who arrives at Valley State University and makes a bumpy transition into American life with the help of Joanna Silver (Meryl Streep), a wealthy university patron who takes a liking to the young student. Xing joins a select cosmology group under the direction of his hero, the famous cosmologist Professor Jacob Reiser (Aidan Quinn). The group is working to create a model of the origins of the universe, based on Reiser’s theory. Xing’s enormous talent leads him quickly to become Reiser’s protégé, and it seems that only hard work stands between him and a bright future in science. But Xing is obsessed with the study of dark matter, an unseen substance that he believes shapes the universe, and a theory that conflicts with the Reiser model. When Xing begins to make scientific breakthroughs of his own, he begins to encounter unexpected obstacles.

Schinelli described Zhai as “well-Americanized and integrated into the Stevens community.”

Schinelli says…….”Over [in China], it certainly seems plausible that someone might be thrown in jail because they disagreed with a professor. [It’s]…not anything that would happen over here in real life. That’s obviously not how things work in an American university.”

New Jersey’s Attorney General has sued Stevens’s “administration and its president, Harold Raveché, with plundering a dwindling endowment and giving Mr. Raveché $1.8 million in illegal low-interest loans for vacation homes, half of which were forgiven”.

“The institute’s trustees tripled Dr. Raveché’s salary over a decade, to $1.1 million last year, higher than presidential salaries at Harvard, M.I.T. and Princeton, and, the lawsuit says, Stevens used multiple sets of books to hide its deteriorating financial condition.

“We found extensive misconduct going back years, a pattern of misinformation to the board and misuse of the endowment,” the attorney general, Anne Milgram, said in an interview this month. “Stevens Institute needs real reform.”

According to this article, Price Waterhouse Coopers actually dropped Stevens as an audit client.

“Jack B. Siegel, a Chicago lawyer who follows nonprofit cases nationwide, called the allegations against Stevens “the case of the year” because, unlike previous campus scandals focusing on presidents’ salaries or spending, the case against Stevens outlines a sweeping list of accusations.

“You’ve got allegations involving excessive compensation, but also abuse of the endowment, keeping two sets of books, misleading the board and forgiveness of below-market-rate loans,” Mr. Siegel said. “The entire process of oversight looks tainted. You rarely see a case this extreme.””

and this:

“The turmoil at Stevens can be traced to 2004, when Moody’s downgraded its bond ratings to near junk status because of operating deficits and rising debt. A faculty committee, led by Donald N. Merino, a professor of technology and engineering management, had studied the institute’s tax returns and other public financial reports, and concluded that administrative salaries were excessive and that Stevens’s finances were deteriorating.

Ms. Milgram said her investigation began with reports from a faculty whistle-blower.

“There’s no question, I’m the main whistle-blower, and it’s not been easy,” Dr. Merino said. “They are making my life miserable.””

It presents a picture of favored insiders who bled the institution while squeezing rest of the staff, affecting morale:

“It was the secretaries and other “out-crowd” operatives who shouldered the burden of fiduciary responsibility, harried by Orwellian mantras to “save” and “conserve,” as pens, paper, and file folders became the currency of fiscal salvation. All the while, top officials traveled the world first class pursuing whimsical schemes, like a failed effort to set up a new Stevens campus in Saudi Arabia in 2001.”

“The whiff of scandal and malfeasance has begun to have its deleterious effects, as anecdotal evidence from faculty members suggests that at national conferences, more questions are asked of them about Stevens’ current deteriorating situation than about material they present in papers. Fiscal mismanagement may beget smaller donations, a shrinking endowment, fewer scholarship dollars for students, higher tuitions. Credibility of Stevens in the public and private sector can decline; research opportunities are missed and grant opportunities are lost.

For over three months, the administration and board have done little publicly to address and ameliorate legitimate concerns. “Not allowed to comment,” say spokespersons. The siege mentality prevails and silence reigns.”

******************
The NYTimes editorial urged that the case bring about real change at SIT in strong language:

“The board is politically powerful, and some faculty members and alumni worry that it will use its connections to stall the suit once the current attorney general, Anne Milgram, gives way to her successor after the new governor is sworn in next month.

That must not be allowed to happen. The new attorney general needs to pursue this case vigorously, while the Legislature turns its attention to strengthening financial oversight of colleges and other nonprofits.”

******************
But how is this to happen in corruption plagued New Jersey?

******************
So with all this malfeasance and scandal going on, including reports of maltreatment of staff and retaliation against whistleblowers, I would be less inclined to take Steven’s administrators’ accusations against Zhai at face value.

I am willing to bet if some American in China got charged with terrorism like this, the American government would have no problems condemning China with its ‘oppressive government.’ But since it was some poor Chinese National who got slapped with this kind of ridiculous charge, the American government doesn’t give a damn and uses 9/11 as its excuse. At times, I don’t know which is worse of a police state, the US or China.

It sounds like he made some kind of spat with some professor and he said some things that he shouldn’t be said. For that, he might deserve to get his visa revoked and kicked out from the school. That’s not in question here.

The question is what is the definition of a ‘Terrorist Threat.’ According to here:

Perhaps what he did does qualify as a ‘Terrorist Threat,’ but this law came in affect for terrorists after 9/11. And this law are for people whom are politically motivated to do harm to the country but not the case for this person.

@Pug_ster
Like I said I will not share my opinion on this situation only because Virginia Tech truly scare the bejesus out of me. You may want to argue the definition of the “Terrorist Threat” and to what level of a threat should be taken seriously.
All I know is, if I was his professor and I got a threatening letter saying that the author wants to burn down the school, I would definitely take it seriously to what degree? I don’t know. I do acknowledge that now any foreign person says anything threatening being classify as a terrorist threat is unfair, but the burden of the proof is on the prosecution and the college itself, so I am waiting to see what the verdict is. And from a person who lives in a place that millions of illegal immigrant/legal immigrant comes through the border everyday, I also believe that you can never be too careful about these things after 9/11.

It is interesting that since June 1st, the Grand Jury has refused to formally charge Zhai so far, due to “lack of sufficient evidence from the school”. And I thought the school official said there was an email/letter containing the threat. Funny how now the evidence is not sufficient. I guess Stevens official has been eating crow?

ICE has confiscated Zhai’s Chinese passport. Yet, when Zhai’s lawyers requested that Zhai be released, due to the lack of formal charges, the low court demanded that Zhai turn over his Chinese passport, which is already confiscated by ICE. (Obviously, that means, Zhai cannot turn over a passport that he does not have, and Zhai will thus remain in jail INDEFINITELY!)

Not looking too good for Stevens Institute and the US government. They still don’t have sufficient evidence for the grand jury to charge Zhai? Sounds pretty fishy now, doesn’t it?

You know, they better get ready for the counter suit for false-imprisonment and defamation (and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). (We can toss in a boycott on Stevens while we are at it.) But then again, more injustices would not surprise me at this point any more, especially when the word “terrorist” is being used.

Zhai Tiantian has been held in jail without charges for almost 80 days. As of 6/24, Zhai issued a public statement that he intends to begin a hunger strike from 6/24, to protest his treatment, especially the local court’s decision to add difficult conditions to his bail, even after he has raised the necessary bail money. Stevens Institute has declined Zhai’s attorney’s request to cooperate in Zhai’s defense investigation of the alleged “evidence”.

Well, if Stevens was worried about bad publicity earlier, they better consider what will happen if anything dire happens to Zhai in jail. Yes, it will become a bigger international incident. (A Chinese Ph.D. student with no criminal background goes to US to study computers, and dies in US jail without trial, without charges, and without any apparent proof of crime? Well, that’s worth at least 10 years of White Papers on US Human rights.)

So, let’s just say I don’t like this person… If I say to the police that he threatened to burn down the city, they’ll just jail him without any evidence at all, just based on my words?

No evidence of what he said; no evidence of any criminal action; arrested, kicked out of school, jailed for three months because a professor reportedly told the police something. I do not care if it’s misunderstanding or not, if you do not have evidence of crime, or even if what he said, just let the guy go… or at least under house arrest…
some common sense please…
Complete BS

Yep, it’s complete BS to hold a student with no history of violence without charge for more than 70 days, based upon the hearsay of a school with less than stellar reputation. It’s even more troubling that Zhai has already paid the court the $20K bail money initially set, but now the court is ADDING conditions to make his release impossible.

What happened in Virgina Tech was unfortunate, but what does it have to do with him? If Zhan Tian tian wanted to burn down a school, wouldn’t he have the intent to do it? Maybe some e-mail, note or even for receipts to buy flame propellants or something? At least that nut from Virgina Tech went out and brought some guns because he went postal. Maybe we should start arresting people who has grievances to a school, ex-spouse, workplace because at some point some of them probably made some kind of threats.

The “threat” crimes’ intent requirement only requires that the accused had the intent to threaten or cause fear. It doesn’t matter if he never intended to carry out his threats.

That said, Zhai’s intent to cause fear is not very obvious, nor is there apparently sufficient evidence to show such intent. The prosecution has little to back up the accusation, let alone the fact that NO formal charges has been issued.

What Zhai’s case has shown is a rather clear case of selective prosecution, and abuse of prosecutorial power. I have posted above another case of arson and “terrorist threat” in the same school from 2008-2009, and the accused in that case had actually caused damages to the school, but he was let off with NO fines and only 3 years probation.

I cannot explain the disparity of treatment between the accused in the 2 cases. So a general excuse of Virginia Tech or 9/11 just doesn’t sound at all plausible. School shootings and vandalisms go on all the time. This isn’t some new “zero-tolerance” policy instituted by Stevens Institute or NJ state.

@Pug_ster
I have a co-worker that made threatening emails to a judge about his divorce and now he is in jail because of it. Of course he was a good co worker and bitter about his divorce so I understand how he feels but this was the first hand I saw no matter how good nature of the person may be but one still can go to jail. (btw he is a white guy not a minority)
Now, I still haven’t seen the evidence from the school police that shows intent, but you have to realize one thing, one, I don’t have a double standard so I believe that you can never be too careful. But according to all of the news that he did write a letter to threaten the professor about burning down the building. And I don’t think they usually publish the letter in the news. Like I said, one can never be too careful and it is just stupid on his part for threatening a professor. His character witnesses may help him clear his charges but if the school has the letter that he supposed wrote, that evidence may be damning.

I don’t get it. I thought Chinese newspapers were reporting back in May that this guy was indicted for terroristic threats. Now we’re hearing that the grand jury has insufficient evidence to issue an indictment? How does a guy get arrested in April, indicted in May, only to find out that the grand jury won’t issue an indictment in June? Is Zhai in a time warp?

All of that notwithstanding, I agree that a guy shouldn’t be detained without charges. So if they aren’t actually going to charge him, and never did, then he should be released. Does the law prescribe a maximum allowable time of detention without charges, in NJ?

According to NJ’s laws, a grand jury would “typically” issue an indictment (formal charges) within 50 days of arrest. However, that does not appear to be a hard and fast rule. But seeing how Zhai has been arrested for at least 70 days, they are pushing the timeline significantly. It is also reported that the next grand jury hearing for Zhai’s case will not meet until July.

The “indictment sheet” reported earlier may be merely what the prosecutor has filed with the courts as the intended charges, not what the grand jury actually issued. After a grand jury issues the actual indictment, then the arrestee would be “formally charged” by an arraignment court (arraigned). In Zhai’s case, there has been no grand jury issued indictment, nor an actual arraignment.

*After arraignment, it could be more delays. NJ’s constitutional guarantee of “speedy trial” only guarantees that a suspect would be tried within 6 months (that is trial begins within 6 months of arrest). So Zhai could be in jail for a long time.

Thanks for the explanation. Much different than Canada’s system. Here, the police investigate then recommend charges that they feel are warranted. A Crown prosecutor reviews the police file, and decides to proceed with those charges are not. But once the prosecutor says it’s a go, then it’s a go. We don’t have a grand jury process.

Is the grand jury a body that simply issues a yea or nay, or are they empowered to make independent judgments? (ie. does the prosecutor present preliminary evidence and argue for certain charges, and the grand jury either agrees or disagrees? Or does the prosecutor present evidence then the grand jury gets to decide what if any charges are justified by the evidence they’ve heard, independent of what the prosecutor suggests?) The reason I ask is that, if it’s the former, then can the prosecutor go back with the same evidence and ask for different charges? If it’s the latter, then it would seem that the jury has decided that the evidence supports no feasible charge, in which it’d be a real head-scratcher as to why he’s still being held.

Every state has a slightly different grand jury process. Generally, Grand jury members in US are specially selected members of the public, but the service tends to be more involved than the ordinary jurors.

Also typically, grand jury proceedings are operated by the prosecutor, who presents evidence as “elements” of proposed charges or violation of specific criminal codes. So, it would be the “Former”, or the grand jury simply issues a yea or nay. This is because the prosecutor’s evidence must MATCH to specific elements of specific crimes. If the prosecutor’s evidence is insufficient to meet all required elements of a specific crime, the grand jurors (who are lay citizens) cannot break the neutrality of the grand jury by helping the prosecutor find new charges.

Naturally, in many states, a prosecutor can run multiple times to the grand jury on the same suspected crime. This is allowed, because “double jeopardy” does not set in until a petit jury of the actual trial is “empaneled” (or selection begins).

In Zhai’s case, the prosecutor may be gathering additional evidence for a 2nd go at the grand jury in July. However, that would suggest that whatever evidence initially provided by the school was not very clear nor conclusive, or at least the grand jury considered the evidence to be too slim.

Note: The grand jury ONLY need to find “sufficient evidence” that the suspect committed the crime in question. This is not the innocent until proven guilty without reasonable doubt standard. The grand jury’s standard to issue an indictment is considered to be very low. But here, the evidence could not even meet this low threshold of proof.

Yay, finally a small reprieve, Zhai is transferred from jail to immigration detention at least, away from all the violent criminals. Apparently, the evidence was a phone call that was never even recorded. 而他們指控翟田田恐怖威脅的證據只不過是一通沒有錄音的電話.

*Also NJ jail refused Zhai access to Chinese consulate officials who went to visit Zhai on 6/28 afternoon. Zhai’s lawyer issued an official protest to the jail officials, and sent a letter to President obama. Hmmm…

Unfortunately, I think Obama’s aides would file Zhai’s complaint in the round file cabinet. RV, I wonder if Zhai, whom is not an American citizen or permanent citizen could file counter lawsuits against DHS or Stevens Institute of Technology?

Citizenship status does not matter in civil lawsuits. As long as Zhai was present at the time of his injury (in this case his time in jail without charges and damage to his personal reputation), he can file counter lawsuits against the government and the school.

Similarly, foreign companies can file lawsuits against US companies or government in US courts for damages, as long as there is jurisdictional connections.

Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction for diversity of citizenship – Zhai, a foreign national, he went to school in NJ, not intending to permanently reside there, cannot be considered a NJ resident; his accusers are NJ residents or corporations. The amount of damage he will sue for may well be over $75,000. He should sue for violation of his civil right – first amendment (freedom of speech), 14th amendment (due process). ACLU might be of any help? When he wins, he will the be the Dr. King for the vast amount of Chinese graduate students and foreign graduate students that works and abused in the system by their graduate advisers. Speak up guys!

In this segment, Ellison is complaining about how the big movie studios mooch off professional writers and expect not to pay them for an interview appearing on a DVD. He continues his rant:

“And they don’t even send you a copy of the DVD!!
You know, you have to call them and say, ‘Where’s the DVD?!’

[And they say] ‘Well, it’s been out for six months, and well, you could go to the store and buy it.’

YOU COULD GO TO THE STORE AND BUY IT, MOTHERF***ER! You go to the store and buy it, you send me the goddam dvd NOW or I’m gonna come down to your office and I’m gonna BURN IT TO THE GROUND!!! How about that!?!”

‘Well, you don’t have to get mean about it…’

‘YEAH, I DO have to get mean about it!’ ”

……

In American culture, threatening to burn down a building when you’re dealing with a big institution is a way of showing that you are really angry about something, to jolt the listener to pay attention, but the words are hyperbole and never meant to be taken literally….just seriously.

“The law isn’t justice. It’s a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be.”

“As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom.” Pythagoras

Latest news in China daily: ‘Terroristic threats’ Zhai to return to Chinahttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-07/30/content_11073107.htm
They also write: “Hai (Ming, his lawyer) said Zhai is satisfied with the outcome. He no longer has hatred for Stevens as he did earlier and he no longer plans to sue the school. “, but on the other hand: “So far, Zhai has spent more than 100 days in two different jails”. Probably there was a deal.